One of EVE's sayings is "Don't fly what you can't lose."
In general, you get that kind of ship especially for these types of fights. There isn't much base-building or PvE inside of EVE; it's all about the PvP. Being able to say that you flew a Titan into a battle is a major accomplishment inside of the EVE universe, so you don't care as much if you lose it (of course, you want to keep it safe, but only to fly it into more battles).
Right on the money, but titans are also arguably most valuable for logistics - "jumping" large amounts of ships over large distances. Some may never see battle because the corp or alliance needs them for this purpose and doesn't want to risk losing them.
(Unless, that is, the pilot presses the wrong button and jumps the titan itself into battle, rather than the fleet it was trying to move. Which is what started this whole fight.)
To me personally (I don't keep up with professional design trends), that is an amazingly well designed page. I click on it and I immediately know what the website is used for. All of the well-designed websites are too low on content; I have to search for what the website is about, and if I didn't already know what the products were I would be immediately turned off.
For instance, on the Spotify website, I am told two things: it is called Spotify and it has something to do with music. "Music for every moment" doesn't tell me much about the functionality of the product and really doesn't sell me on it. Lapka is even worse by not telling me a single thing on the actual page.
Yes it can, as it has been done before with the police system. You have a group of people watching society and reporting any criminal activity. It just so happens that the response system is already built in. Police don't go into private homes or search belongings without due process.
It should be quite easy to design a system in that way. Cameras and other surveillance tools can only be placed in public places; this will protect civil liberties while still enabling the government to better distribute justice. In effect, they will place a policeman on every street corner.
I'm not so sure. To play a devil's advocate, even cameras in public places, if combined with some data mining can invade privacy pretty badly. Say, resulting in continuous tracking.
Playing Devil's Advocate here (I actually agree with you), the main argument against privacy is that it hampers effective and just running of the government. Simply put, the government must gather such information to work in the way that it is told to (we elected almost all of these people, remember). An example of this working properly is search warrants: the government can and will search your private property without your permission, a clear invasion of privacy, but acceptable as it leads to a better justice system. Yes, the government is limited in what it can search, but that power is still held by the government even if the person in question doesn't agree with it.
The question shouldn't be about protecting privacy; it should be about being fair with how the government invades it. For example, the body scanners could be considered not fair as they invade more people's privacy than necessary (or they could be fair if they didn't).
Most ideas can be broken down into simpler parts. For instance, multiplication used to be a university level subject, but most literate people can do multiplication up to any digit (given the time, of course).
I think that the problem lies with Billy Bob, not the gun. It's not worth preventing the edge cases if that means reducing the average person's ability to defend themselves. Say that one person of the family had a pistol, and ran and got it while the Billy was busy shooting the others? The family member could then shoot Billy and possibly save a few family members. Guns are a means of personal power, and while loose gun laws mean that an unlawful person can get a gun, it also means that other people can defend themselves against said person, or other, non-gun-related crimes such as burglary.
I think it is the other way around. Chomsky is trying to find the underlying structure of intelligence (just like gravity underlies planetary motion), and is saying that others are simply trying to generate a model of intelligence (through statistical methods) with no understanding of why the intelligence behaves that way. Gravity is the why, planetary motion is the model produced by data (acquired by Brahe).
What will prevent Chomsky from having an Earth-centric model of the solar system, with epicycles to explain all of those weird little ticks like dropped pronouns?
The only thing that could possibly break you out of that way of thinking is massive amounts of observational analysis to show you that your foundation is flawed.
Seeing the moons of Jupiter revolutionized physics. Chomsky says that observing the heavens is unnecessary, and a distraction from his studying of the motion of billiards balls.
He's got trigonometry down cold, but he'll never come up with calculus that way. And quantum mechanics would never fall into Chomsky's way of thinking, in my analogy.
It's like the word "indefinitely". It may mean "we can start it back up anytime!" from a dictionary sense, but it's actual use is that "it's probably not coming back".
"Maintenance" means that they will fix major issues that the paying customers are legally entitled to (such as bugs that make the app unusable). They will do nothing beyond that.
Nobody is arguing this is a legal problem, they're arguing that this is a moral problem.
Users did buy into the Sparrow thing because they expected updates/maintenance etc etc. Their purchase was contingent on the ongoing support of the service, they would not have bought a product they thought would be discontinued.
Now, you can argue that they should have known that the service might disappear without warning, that they should never have used it if there was the possibility of them being bought, but where does that leave us? Should people just stop buying popular apps created by small companies? Should people insist on a legally binding "community promise" to open-source a product if active development stops?
This also neglects the fact that users are statistically credulous - as a group they're simply not rational enough to seriously consider the possibility of the developer being acquired. The Sparrow guys had to have known this, so they either did something unethical when they sold the app or they did something unethical when they sold the company. The blog post says that it is fine to take advantage of them for their credulity, but that's not an ethical position, that's just Ayn Rand.
>Nobody is arguing this is a legal problem, they're arguing that this is a moral problem.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. The comment above the one to which you are replying states:
"Maintenance" means that they will fix major issues that the paying customers are legally entitled to (such as bugs that make the app unusable).
It's almost like you completely ignored this to make some point about Ayn Rand.
>Now, you can argue that they should have known that the service might disappear without warning
What service? We are talking about a downloadable application that is locally stored on the user's device until they delete it. It will not stop working. I've been using an old version of Thunderbird for a while now simply because I haven't felt like upgrading and setting up all my GPG stuff again.
These things may seem like nitpicks, but I think the nuance here is important and is being skipped over in favor of complaining about something. The reaction is way overblown in my opinion.
> The comment above the one to which you are replying states:
>> ...fix major issues that the paying customers are legally entitled to...
Ah craps. You're right, I skipped over that comment and assumed the one I was replying to was making a different point. I look like an ass, and it serves me right. I'd delete or edit the post to make a retraction, but HN has decided that it's important to keep my mistakes around for posterity.
From what you said above it sounds like Microsoft should also still be releasing and providing you patches for Windows 95. You paid a one time fee for an application, if you wanted support and updates for it forever you should have expected to be paying a monthly / yearly fee. If at the time the updates stop coming, then the company should just stop charging you the ongoing support fee.
Expecting lifetime support for a one time flat payment of almost nothing is pretty silly.
The "lifetime support" argument doesn't follow from anything I said. Users may not have been savvy to the possibility of the software being discontinued in this fashion, but they certainly understand that an end-of-life is inevitable. They're used to free updates over the natural lifespan of the product, and they feel that there's been a breach of courtesy when the natural lifespan of a product is willfully cut short.
I don't know. I know that Windows 95 has long since reached the end of its natural lifespan, and that users feel that Sparrow's life was "cut short". I'm sure there isn't a sharp dividing line, but we don't really need one in this case - it's clear which side this falls on.
I haven't seen a single person being entitled or saying that they deserved more from Sparrow. People are upset because Sparrow is being abandoned, and "rights" or what you "deserve" has nothing to do with it. Creating a blog post attacking fake "my rights!" arguments is just silly.
I've seen quite a lot of people saying that. The author quotes several in his article. If people were merely upset, that would be one thing. But people are talking as if they deserve updates and new features.
I couldn't find any quotes expecting endless updates without paying more. The author is wrong in his approach either way. Looking at each issue in isolation. He also incorrectly accounts for the cost to the user. It's not just $10. It's also the time invested into learning the software, setting it up, etc.
He also makes a bunch of assumptions (of course they asked google about open sourcing, but google said no for example) and also skips over other serious problems (things sparrow said they were working on for the future).
